SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (1130)8/1/2008 7:31:12 AM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86352
 
Tim,

I agree with you on cap and trade. It actually makes me nervous as hell. It's like taking a shotgun and trying to hit the bullseye. Very hard to do. Also, all the cap and trade plans I've see from both parties have included plans to use the proceeds for either more government spending in other areas or to reduce taxes. In my opinion, that defeats the whole darn purpose. What they should do with 100% of the proceeds is reinvest it in alternatives, conservation measures, or CO2 reduction measures.

I'd very much prefer an increase in the gas tax and legislation to put a floor price of $4 on gas, and then use the proceeds for subsidies for conservation and alternatives. That would have a very direct impact on the largest oil use in this country and ensure that the market has the long term signal it needs to put all its efforts towards the conservation and alternatives markets. Also, it let's the market decide which products are the best, instead of the gov't getting involved in favoring one energy source or product over another.

This is the problem you've highlighted before. If the government gets involved, the tools they use to influence things can be very blunt instruments. So I'd much prefer they craft legislation that achieves the intended purpose with a minimum of gov't interference. Let's see how it all shakes out over the next couple years and hope for the best.